Print

Print


It is true that the definition of <creation> in the Guidelines is "contains information about the creation of a text". The definition of <change>, however, says that it "documents a change or set of changes made during the production of a source document". I assume "document" is here used in the sense of text-bearing object (as you yourself use it in your comment); it would be odd to use it to mean text.

In a note to <listChange> it says: "When this element appears within the creation element it documents the set of revision campaigns or stages identified during the evolution of the original text." I don't see why rubbing the whole thing out and writing something else on top couldn't be described as a "revision campaign".

Matthew
________________________________________
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Lou Burnard [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 June 2016 15:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: palimpsest

<creation> is intended to hold information about the creation of the
TEXT, not the document/s attesting it. For example, suppose we encode
the text of a poem known to have circulated in manuscript form during
the 16th century, but of which no copy text survives earlier than the
20th. The profileDesc/creation  might talk about the fact that the poem
was created in the 16th c; the sourceDesc should describe the 20th c.
source document/s from which we made the encoding; the revisionDesc
should describe the history of the encoded version itself./s

This seems quite unambiguous to me in the current description of
<creation> in the Guidelines, (probably because I wrote it).

In the case of a  palimpsest there would be therefore be  two or more
<creation>  elements , one for each distinct text represented on a
layer.  Matthew's proposed encoding doesn't seem to work for that
reason: though I agree that <listChange> is probably an appropriate and
certainly a convenient way of representing the different stages
identified in a single document. I think I'd put the <listChange> inside
<origin>


On 20/06/16 15:34, Torsten Scha▀an wrote:
> Dear Matthew, dear all,
>
> this is something I always "struggle" with: Does the description within <profileDesc> relate to the text of the TEI file or to the text of the document represented, i.e. described, transcribed etc, in the TEI file?
>
> If it were the latter should the Guidelines express this better by opposing it to the <revisionStmt>. And I would wonder about the relation between <creation> on the one hand and <origin> on the other.
>
> Best,
> Torsten
>
> --
> Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen - Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165)
> Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
>
>
>
>   Von:   Matthew James Driscoll <[log in to unmask]>
>   An:   <[log in to unmask]>
>   Gesendet:   20.06.2016 13:45
>   Betreff:   Re: palimpsest
>
>
>
> Dear Marion,
>
>   The most obvious way of dealing with palimpsests, it seems to me, is to use the <listChange> element in the TEI Header, as in the following (made-up) example:
>
>        <profileDesc>
>           <creation>
>              <listChange>
>                 <change xml:id="UT" notBefore="0801" notAfter="0900" target="#UT-Item01 #MS101-01r-UT #UT-text01">Original writing, s. IX</change>
>                 <change xml:id="OT" notBefore="1251" notAfter="1300" target="#OT-Item02 #MS101-01r-OT #OT-text02">Overtext, s. XIII 2/2</change>
>              </listChange>
>           </creation>
>        </profileDesc>
>
>   One can then also point to these "changes" in the MS description:
>
>                  <msContents>
>                     <msItem xml:id="UT-Item01" change="#UT">
>                        <locus from="1r" to="1v"/>
>                        <title>Medical treatise</title>
>                        <textLang mainLang="gr"/>
>                     </msItem>
>                     <msItem xml:id="OT-Item02" change="#OT">
>                        <locus from="1r" to="1v"/>
>                        <title>Hymn</title>
>                        <textLang mainLang="la"/>
>                     </msItem>
>                  </msContents>
>
>   In the facsimile:
>
>         <surface xml:id="MS101-01r" ulx="0" uly="0" lrx="700" lry="1000" change="#UT">
>            <zone xml:id="MS101-01r-UT" rotate="90" ulx="0" uly="0" lrx="700" lry="1000">
>               <graphic url="graphic-01r-UT.jpg"/>
>            </zone>
>            <zone xml:id="MS101-01r-OT" ulx="0" uly="0" lrx="700" lry="1000" change="#OT">
>               <graphic url="graphic-01r-OT.jpg"/>
>            </zone>
>         </surface>
>
>   And in the transcription:
>
>        <body>
>            <div xml:id="UT-text01" change="#UT">
>               <pb xml:id="UT-f1r" facs="#MS101-01r-UT"/>
>               <!-- text of undertext here -->
>            </div>
>            <div xml:id="OT-text01" change="#OT">
>               <pb xml:id="OT-f1r" facs="#MS101-01r-OT"/>
>               <!-- text of overtext here -->
>            </div>
>         </body>
>
>   Slightly belt-and-braces perhaps, but it certainly makes clear what is what.
>
>   All the best,
>   Matthew
>
>   M. J. Driscoll
>   ArnamagnŠan Institute
>   University of Copenhagen
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Marion LAM╔ [[log in to unmask]]
>   Sent: 20 June 2016 00:22
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>   Subject: palimpsest
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>   In order to follow already existing habits, we are looking for some examples of encoding for palimpsest texts, that is:
>   - erasing intentionally and entirely or most of the surface of the TBO: some symbols are still observable and eventually readable on this/these older layer(s).
>   - reusing the same surface to write another text, sometimes totally different from the previous one: this most recent layer on the manuscript is usually more readable than the older one / the olders.
>
>   Palimpsest texts have a "semantic baggage" that is a bit different from similar writing processes such as the two following examples:
>   - erasing part of the written surface (e.g.: a word or a letter) and rewrite for correcting a mistake for instance; in such an example both writings belong to the same layer and the writing process belongs to a same intention / moment / production.
>   - erasing and leave this textual phenomena visible such as in the cases of damnatio memoriae on some inscriptions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We have searched in the Mark up list and TEI-L list archives and we have not found yet any previous messages that was convincing enough and definitive practice. The most interesting message seems to suggest to use the <altidentifier> with a @type + a value  such as "palimpsest". But it also seems to refer to another description process, that is when one should collect several versions of a same text from various TBO. https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;ae9cfb92.1102
>
>
>
> Could several <div> and / or <ab> be used to encode the overlapping texts on a same TBO + some attribute (@type ?) + a value ("palimpsest" ?) ?
>
>   What are your habits describe each layer of texts that are overlapping in a palimpsest manuscript?
>
>
>   Would some of you be kind enough to share their previous experiences (XML code and / or links), please?
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marion LamÚ
>